MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117557900 · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2020.3047622

Automatic Detection and Measurement of Spinous Process Curve on Clinical Ultrasound Spine Images

2020· article· en· W3117557900 on OpenAlexaff
Hongye Zeng, Edmond Lou, Songhan Ge, Zhichao Liu, Rui Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shanghai
KeywordsCoronal planeArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceScoliosisVector flowUltrasoundRadiographyImage segmentationSegmentationNuclear medicineMathematicsMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ultrasound (US) imaging technique has been applied to scoliosis assessment, and the proxy Cobb angle can be acquired on the US coronal images. The spinous process angle (SPA) is a valuable parameter to indicate 3-D deformity of spine. However, the SPA cannot be measured on US images since the spinous process (SP) is merged in the soft tissue layer and impossible to be identified on the coronal view directly. A new method based on the gradient vector flow (GVF) snake model was proposed to automatically locate SP position on the US transverse images, and the density-based spatial clustering of application with noise (DBSCAN) was used to remove the outliers out of the detected location results. With marking the SP points on the US coronal image, the SP curve was interpolated and the SPA was measured. The algorithm was evaluated on 50 subjects with various severity of scoliosis, and two raters measured the SPA on both US images and radiographs manually. The mean absolute differences (MADs) of SPAs obtained from the two modalities were 3.4° ± 2.4° and 3.6° ± 2.8° for the two raters, respectively, which were less than the clinical acceptance error (5°), and the results reported a good linear correlation ( ) between the US method and radiography. It indicates that the proposed method can be a promising approach for SPA measurement using the US imaging technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency ControlSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207